noclue, I wasn't trying to do Dharma combat, I was just trying to make you think!. In fact, you have answered your own question! Because it is your own mind that is causing the suffering. Yes my mind wanders and sometimes I get upset and even feel blue. However, understanding that it is this very mind which is the cause, allows me to put all things in perspective.

all things are Mind, what is there to accept and what is there to reject, other than what you accept and what you reject.

some have said that this suffering samsara is nirvana. that is a point a view for some, for others an experiential reality.

we suffer, even the buddha suffered from time to time (though there was no such person called the Buddha, no self to be named Buddha). it is Mind that causes us to suffer and Mind that brings about the cessation of suffering.

i speculate that it is the journey in buddhism that brings about changes in the individual, however that journey leads back to the start, it is an immense journey in which finally one has not taken a single step.

the changes that occur in us during the journey are a source of relief from suffering, it can be said it is the journey that matters more than the destination. the destination is no destination. it is the origin. just this mind.

best wishes, White Lotus.

the moon is always there,every night whithout fail.why look for its reflection when your own naturealways shines.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Hi there WL! As Will noted there are schools and teachings within some schools that teach that our mind is actually a complete Buddha. There are different versions or interpretations of this profound teaching. The Soto school is perhaps the most radical in this respect with the teaching being very close to literal. This sparked Dogen Zenji's quest: if he were already fully enlightened why was there a need for practice? Similarly, if we are already fully enlightened then how is it possible for us to suffer? How is it possible for us to become angry, annoyed, prideful, lustful or for any negative state to arise?

Master Seung Sahn's quote was also frequently spoken by Daido Roshi in his teachings. Really the whole Zen path begins at this point. If we are fully enlightened, then what next (or better - why don't we act like it? why don't we take this out into our lives? what's keeping us from this reality?)? If we are fully enlightened, enlightened just like Shakyamuni Buddha, then why aren't we infinitely compassionate and wise? Why would there even be a gap between an unenlightened state and an enlightened state? Why aren't we just born with all the qualities complete from babyhood? Why are people running around killing and harming each other at all?

Note that Master Seung Sahn's Kwan Um school has a great deal of focus on correct functioning so for them the fact that every being is already actually enlightened is not the end of the story.

I can tell you before Master Huifeng appears that throughout the history of Chan there were different interpretations of what buddha-nature stands for. These views and debates were very much interwoven with the general situation in Chinese Buddhism and should not be taken as a strictly and exclusively Chan thing. In Chinese Buddhism from early on the teaching of buddha-nature was taken granted and except for Xuanzang's short-lived attempt to reform that it was accepted in every school. However, that doesn't mean they understood the buddha-nature in the same way, see for instance the debate on whether insentient things are included within buddha-nature or not. Thus I think we can talk about interpretations from "nominal buddha-nature" (as a different expression of emptiness) up to "original enlightenment" (everyone is de facto enlightened). For example, Dogen's problem (Why practice if I'm a buddha?) comes from the original enlightenment view he inherited from the Japanese Tendai school.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

kirtu wrote:Hi there WL! As Will noted there are schools and teachings within some schools that teach that our mind is actually a complete Buddha. There are different versions or interpretations of this profound teaching. The Soto school is perhaps the most radical in this respect with the teaching being very close to literal. This sparked Dogen Zenji's quest: if he were already fully enlightened why was there a need for practice? Similarly, if we are already fully enlightened then how is it possible for us to suffer? How is it possible for us to become angry, annoyed, prideful, lustful or for any negative state to arise?

I don't know why this would be such a difficult problem. Just study Bodhidharma's teachings.

For example, the Bloodstream Sermon. He's very clear with it - not just that our own mind is Buddha, that a Buddha cannot be found outside our own mind, but exactly why that is so, and furthermore he explains why Ordinary Beings don't realize it even though it is always functioning.

I doubt that Dogen had a problem with understanding. He was addressing those who simply flap their gums about mind already being Buddha and carry on in their deluded ways, and explaining the error logically.

the higher vehicles say that deportment and personal behaviour are not important. i find the view of the lower vehicles can be refreshing when approaching personal holiness. though have not attained sufficient holiness to consider myself a buddha.

inspite of clearly seeing my own nature and the nature of all things i still have not attained buddha deportment. and one knows a tree by its fruit... which i do not yet have. i suspect several on this site see their own nature and the nature of all things. Keizan in the Denkoroku considered this a mark of buddhahood, but that in the ch'an transmission it was also necessary to attain to no-way, non-attainment and no-liberation. keizan sees these things as fundamental. to me they mean nothing. it is only mind that matters.

it is interesting that in later life Master Dogen is reported to have had a bad temper.

the fundamental is mind. the icing on the cake is deportment. you can have one without the other, hopefully one day i can have both together!

with love, from white Lotus.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

kirtu wrote:Hi there WL! As Will noted there are schools and teachings within some schools that teach that our mind is actually a complete Buddha. There are different versions or interpretations of this profound teaching. The Soto school is perhaps the most radical in this respect with the teaching being very close to literal. This sparked Dogen Zenji's quest: if he were already fully enlightened why was there a need for practice? Similarly, if we are already fully enlightened then how is it possible for us to suffer? How is it possible for us to become angry, annoyed, prideful, lustful or for any negative state to arise?

I don't know why this would be such a difficult problem. Just study Bodhidharma's teachings.

For example, the Bloodstream Sermon. He's very clear with it - not just that our own mind is Buddha, that a Buddha cannot be found outside our own mind, but exactly why that is so, and furthermore he explains why Ordinary Beings don't realize it even though it is always functioning.

That's a good point, thanks Dexing! I haven't read the Bloodstream Sutra in quite a while and probably don't even have it anymore, unfortunately.\Kirt

I can tell you before Master Huifeng appears that throughout the history of Chan there were different interpretations of what buddha-nature stands for. These views and debates were very much interwoven with the general situation in Chinese Buddhism and should not be taken as a strictly and exclusively Chan thing. In Chinese Buddhism from early on the teaching of buddha-nature was taken granted and except for Xuanzang's short-lived attempt to reform that it was accepted in every school. However, that doesn't mean they understood the buddha-nature in the same way, see for instance the debate on whether insentient things are included within buddha-nature or not. Thus I think we can talk about interpretations from "nominal buddha-nature" (as a different expression of emptiness) up to "original enlightenment" (everyone is de facto enlightened). For example, Dogen's problem (Why practice if I'm a buddha?) comes from the original enlightenment view he inherited from the Japanese Tendai school.

To quote Astus:that doesn't mean they understood the buddha-nature in the same way, see for instance the debate on whether insentient things are included within buddha-nature or not. Thus I think we can talk about interpretations from "nominal buddha-nature" (as a different expression of emptiness)

thank you Venerable Hui-Feng for your input. the rice is plentiful!

if buddha nature is taken to be emptiness, which initially it is, then everything is buddha nature. emptiness is form. form is emptiness. as the mind matures the emptiness is replaced by a solid wall like presence that i can only describe as Mind.

it is perfectly reasonable for a person who has insight into his own nature to see the nature of all things... the two being one and the same. no inside, no outside. the inside being the outside, within as without - as emptiness. but as the mind matures there is a sudden ripping apart of the veil of emptiness and then the self nature and nature of all things are no longer seen as empty, whilst before they were. this is breaking free of emptiness, but respecting that it is nonetheless a state of mind. the mind being all things.

... so i say that there are two ways of seeing self nature, and the nature of all... initially as emptiness and then as Mind. when you experience this for yourself the first time and you taste your own nature, all teachings on emptiness become perfectly clear. after the dwelling in emptiness has matured the underlying nature of mind is perfectly revealed and one sees that mundane awareness is no different from buddha awareness, however there may be a different quality in the fabric of a buddhas mind to that of an ordinary person...

fundamentally, regardless of mind quality all have buddha awareness. awareness is awareness, it is only the quality of the mind that is aware that may differ. practice refines the mental processes of one who practices. though the appearance of awareness may seen to be the same in all sentient beings, fundamentally being mind. mind in a less developed individual is succeptible to canker after annihilation of the I/self.

no worries about buddha nature, everything not only has Mind, it is Mind. the bedrock of mind is always pure awareness, thoughts may be defiled, but the mind fundamentally remains pure... one of the things i respect so much about Gotama Buddha is that he has escaped all mental and emotional blemishes and is pure and perfect in respect to his mental activity. though the mind is basically pure, the processes of thoughts that go on may be defiled.

it says in the dhammapada... "the one who has arrived at the destination, free from fright, craving and blemish, has broken the knives of existence."

best wishes, White Lotus.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus wrote::namaste: the higher vehicles say that deportment and personal behaviour are not important.

No they don't. No Buddhist school says that deportment and personal behavior aren't important.In fact, Daido Roshi specifically said that the precepts were in fact the actual life of the Buddha in the relative world. If we were Buddha's, then we would spontaneously follow the precepts.

noble Kirt, i myself think that deportment is important, but it is a noticable fact that Vinaya masters discredited early chinese zen. was this because deportment was not seen as fundamental and there was even talk of burning the sutras from which that teaching of deportment was derived.

i dont know. i am not a scholar. i am told that deportment is not necessary in preparation for enlightenment. i understand that all enlightened beings immediately have perfect deportment. it is said by some however that all things are the buddha nature, the dharmakaya and that every action and every word is in perfect accordance with true nature, whether or not a being knows its enlightened. zen life zen death.

everything is Mind/buddha nature/tathata. poor deportment is no less mind than pure deportment. purity and impurity are both mind. a higher vehicle may say that it is not helpful to make such distinctions as pure and impure. this is since all is perfectly Mind.

i like to distinguish between pure and impure and could be accused of falling into dualism... but if this is the case i would accuse my accuser of attaching to oneness.

i may be mistaken in my assertion that higher vehicles place less emphasis on deportment. as i say i am not a scholar... this is just my reading of the teachings i have encountered.

it is clearly true that for me to assert that all higher vehicles place less emphasis on deportment would simply be blind and a simplistic assertion. overly simplisic. likewise for me to assert that all higher vehicles place considerable emphasis on vinaya would be overly simplistic.

my assertion was simply a view based on reading, it may be wrong in the minds of some. right in the minds of others. this makes it neither wrong nor right, but only a view... playing with words.

thank you for your observation Kirtu, it has opened my my mind to the flexibility of any doctrinal position.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Hi White Lotus,below is a brief outline of the 'original enlightenment' (Hongaku Shiso) thought in Tendai Buddhism as understood by Jacqueline Stone:

"original enlightenment thought" denotes an array of doctrines and concepts associated with the proposition that all beings are enlightened inherently. Not only human beings, but ants and crickets, mountains and rivers, grasses and trees are all innately Buddhas. The Buddhas who appear in sutras, radiating light and endowed with excellent marks, are merely provisional signs. The "real" Buddha is the ordinary worldling. Indeed, the whole phenomenal world is the primordially enlightened Tathagata."

This is what the "Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana" by Asvaghosa has to say about original enlightenment:

“The essence of Mind is free from thoughts. The characteristic of that which is free from thoughts is analogous to that of the sphere of empty space that pervades everywhere. The one without any second, i.e. the absolute aspect of the World of Reality (Dharma-dhatu) is none other than the undifferentiated Dharmakaya, the “Essence-body” of the Tathagata. Since the essence of Mind is grounded on the Dharmakaya, it is to be called the original enlightenment. Why? Because “original enlightenment” indicates [the essence of Mind (a priori)] in contradistinction to [the essence of Mind in] the process of actualization of enlightenment; the process of actualization of enlightenment is none other than the process of integrating the identity with the original enlightenment”

hope that helps!GasshoJikai

"There are no seperate dharma's in the Three Realms. There is only the operation of the one mind.""Whoever wishes to benefit beings ought to establish teachings that fit their capacities, expound the dharma in accordance with their capacities, and match the doctrines to them"

“Grounded on the original enlightenment is non-enlightenment. And because of non-enlightenment, the process of actualization of enlightenment can be spoken of. Now, to be [fully] enlightened to the fountainhead of Mind is called the final enlightenment, and not to be enlightened to the fountainhead of Mind, non-final enlightenment”

GasshoJikai

"There are no seperate dharma's in the Three Realms. There is only the operation of the one mind.""Whoever wishes to benefit beings ought to establish teachings that fit their capacities, expound the dharma in accordance with their capacities, and match the doctrines to them"

Just let me (perhaps) widen the perspective a little further.What do you think of this statement (I can only give a rough quote):"In time, even the rocks and the trees shall shout of Liberation".

Just wondering what you all make of that statement?

Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.Did you think it was not there-- in your wife's lovely face in your baby's laughter?Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it? from - Judyth Collin The Layman's Lament From What Book, 1998, p. 52 Edited by Gary Gach